Advertisement
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:55 am
by Herby » Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:11 am
Bears Armed Mission wrote:It still refers to "vehicles", without any qualifier, so -- yes-- it would cover aircraft.
by Bears Armed » Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:04 am
In race vehicles
Leaded fuel was used in professional auto racing.
Since 1993, Formula One racing cars have been required to use normal unleaded 'super' petrol compliant with EU standards—the same petrol provided by ordinary petrol stations.[20]
NASCAR switched to unleaded fuel in 2008 after years of research, spurred when blood tests of NASCAR teams revealed elevated blood lead levels.[21][22] An initial test in 2005, using unleaded fuel, with usually dependable motors had led to five cars retiring with engine troubles in a single race.[23]
by Frustrated Franciscans » Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:09 am
Normlpeople wrote:OOC: Ethanol can't bring octane levels as high as lead can (modern premium is 91, 4star leaded was 97).
by Louisistan » Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:24 am
OOC: Here in Germany (and also in Switzerland, were I fill my car's tank) we have unleaded fuel with 95 and 98 octane. There are also some brands (Shell mostly) claiming to produce 100 octane fuel. Never tried it and not sure if it isn't just 99.6 or something like that.
by Defwa » Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:34 am
Louisistan wrote:OOC: Here in Germany (and also in Switzerland, were I fill my car's tank) we have unleaded fuel with 95 and 98 octane. There are also some brands (Shell mostly) claiming to produce 100 octane fuel. Never tried it and not sure if it isn't just 99.6 or something like that.Frustrated Franciscans wrote:
SUNOCO has a 93 octane blend (was until recently 94). They also make a racing fuel at 100 octane.
by Wrapper » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:44 am
by Normlpeople » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:35 am
by Louisistan » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:48 am
Normlpeople wrote:OOC: We no longer have sunoco up here... and I was unaware of the European varieties, though i'd bet the additive within is not exclusively ethanol. Either way, point taken.
by Bears Armed Mission » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:27 am
by Frustrated Franciscans » Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:21 am
Louisistan wrote:OOC: Here in Germany (and also in Switzerland, were I fill my car's tank) we have unleaded fuel with 95 and 98 octane. There are also some brands (Shell mostly) claiming to produce 100 octane fuel. Never tried it and not sure if it isn't just 99.6 or something like that.
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:40 am
by Bears Armed Mission » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:00 am
by Wrapper » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:59 am
Bears Armed Mission wrote:Do I actually have to add a line that specficially includes the term "extreme hazard to national populations"?
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:14 am
Wrapper wrote:OOC: From the link:Bears Armed Mission wrote:Do I actually have to add a line that specficially includes the term "extreme hazard to national populations"?
Unmodly opinion, I don't see why it would be required, it hasn't for all the other resolutions that have passed since then. Would be shocked if the mods go against this precedent.
by Wrapper » Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:16 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: I would literally have an aneurysm if they made that call.
by Bears Armed Mission » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:03 am
by Ardchoille » Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:17 am
I think you've successfully squeezed it into a very small gap. The preamble of "Reducing Automobile Emissions" talks of "waste emissions", "waste products", and "these pollutants", which I think would have been enough to cover particulate emissions as well, but the active definition is quite specific about "gases".Bears Armed Mission wrote:1. Is the subject already covered thoroughly enough by GA Resolution #257 ‘Reducing Automobile Emissions’, so that this proposal would be illegal for amendment/contradiction/duplication? That earlier resolution talks specifically about ”gases”, and apparently the Lead compounds released due to burning leaded fuel are actually [finely-divided] solids suspended in the gaseous exhaust rather than gasses themselves which is a technicality that some governments might otherwise exploit…
The proposed law comes into being instantly. If the law's text allows some gradual, but clearly limited, compliance without creating a loophole that would render the rest of it toothless, I can't see a problem.Bears Armed Mission wrote:2. Concerning the transition periods which this potential legislation would allow for some of the changes involved ...<snip> ... Is this proposal legally okay on that basis?
Bears Armed Mission wrote:Additional question:
Does the current wording of the preamble do enough to show that the use of leaded fuel poses "an extreme hazard to national populations", as required for this proposal to be legal in the context of [the un-repealed] GA Resolution #68 'National Economic Freedoms'?
Do I actually have to add a line that specficially includes the term "extreme hazard to national populations"?
*THUD!*
*ambulance sirens*
"... flatlining! Paddles! STAT!"
by Ardchoille » Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:07 am
by Bears Armed Mission » Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:14 am
Thank you.Ardchoille wrote:I think you've successfully squeezed it into a very small gap. The preamble of "Reducing Automobile Emissions" talks of "waste emissions", "waste products", and "these pollutants", which I think would have been enough to cover particulate emissions as well, but the active definition is quite specific about "gases".Bears Armed Mission wrote:1. Is the subject already covered thoroughly enough by GA Resolution #257 ‘Reducing Automobile Emissions’, so that this proposal would be illegal for amendment/contradiction/duplication? That earlier resolution talks specifically about ”gases”, and apparently the Lead compounds released due to burning leaded fuel are actually [finely-divided] solids suspended in the gaseous exhaust rather than gasses themselves which is a technicality that some governments might otherwise exploit…
The proposal is plugging a loophole, which justly raises questions about whether its an amendment. In my opinion it's not. The impact of banning lead in petrol seems wide enough to allow the WA to recognise it as a separate issue. Reducing Automobile Emissions come at the question solely from the carmakers' PoV, while your proposal comes at it from the fuel industry side as well.The proposed law comes into being instantly. If the law's text allows some gradual, but clearly limited, compliance without creating a loophole that would render the rest of it toothless, I can't see a problem.Bears Armed Mission wrote:2. Concerning the transition periods which this potential legislation would allow for some of the changes involved ...<snip> ... Is this proposal legally okay on that basis?Bears Armed Mission wrote:Additional question:
Does the current wording of the preamble do enough to show that the use of leaded fuel poses "an extreme hazard to national populations", as required for this proposal to be legal in the context of [the un-repealed] GA Resolution #68 'National Economic Freedoms'?
Do I actually have to add a line that specficially includes the term "extreme hazard to national populations"?
Well, of course you have to ...*THUD!*
*ambulance sirens*
"... flatlining! Paddles! STAT!"
... use your own good judgment.
If you were going with my original interpretation, you would have to. But since you're going with the interpretation that mods collectively developed over time, you're fine. You have shown, in your "concerned" and "believing" prefatory clauses, that there is an issue you consider sufficient to warrant invoking NEF's exemption.
Mods aren't required to rule on whether the issue is a hazard, extreme, or affecting national populations, but merely that you have included what you believe is an appropriate issue in your proposal. It's still up to the WA voters to decide whether they agree with you.
Partly "a character-count problem", partly (to be honest) that doing so simply occur to me until this draft was 'ready'. If I'd introduced another committee instead then I'd certainly be willing to transfer its role to the IAEC, but with the text as it currently is I don't hrreally see any committee as being needed anyhows...Ardchoille wrote:Not-a-ruling: I may have missed some discussion, but have you considered tasking the International Automobile Emissions Commission (IAEC) with some supervisory or monitoring role here? It's not necessary for legality, it's just my thrifty dislike of one-hit wonder committees. If it's a character-count problem, please disregard.
by Araraukar » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:00 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Louisistan » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:03 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: I think you managed to break the forum code.
by Wrapper » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:09 pm
by Bears Armed Mission » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:02 am
Wrapper wrote:This is what happens when you give a bear a keyboard.
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:08 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Spode Humbled Minions
Advertisement